From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: more practical view on function's source code |
Date: | 2010-03-21 20:35:48 |
Message-ID: | 27445.1269203748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure that Pavel's idea is the right way to attack the problem,
> but I don't agree with this either. Line numbers are really the only
> feasible way of identifying a position in a large function. I usually
> bring up the function source code in vi and then use j with a repeat
> count to find the offending line. It's not uncommon for me to have
> various places in the function that look somewhat similar, so
> expecting me to find the right place other than by the line number
> would not work very well for me.
I'm certainly not proposing removing the line number from error
messages. I'm just saying that I see no value in the proposed psql \df
change for this purpose.
The direction that we ought to be pushing in, I think, is the same as
the vision for syntax error handling: enable pgAdmin and similar tools
to pop up the function text with a cursor placed at (more or less) the
right place. It's interesting to think about how that might be extended
to lower-tech solutions like \ef. I could see telling people to type
\ef function-name line-number
with suitable magic to get the editor to place the cursor at that line.
I suspect this wouldn't be too hard to do with emacs --- what do you
think about vi?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-03-21 20:48:52 | Re: Proposal for Byte savings in VarBit structure |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-21 20:29:53 | Re: Repeating Append operation |